Posted on 04/03/2006 10:14:13 AM PDT by petkus
There have been further rumors that a possible school boycott would be held on Friday, March 31st. As one who is deeply engaged in the overall efforts to have Congress pass just and humane immigration reform legislation, I am urging all students in the greater Los Angeles area to stay in school tomorrow. I am urging all parents to speak with their sons and daughters this evening and in the morning impressing upon them the need for to remain in school and not on the streets.
Our goal is a shared one: work together effectively to educate the entire community about the issues, join in efforts which help change people’s minds and hearts to embrace sound immigration reform, and take only those steps that lead to this goal.
In my opinion, student boycotts of school and other activities on our streets do not produce meaningful immigration reform. On the contrary, such activities tend to polarize groups in our community and to create a negative backlash against decent immigration legislation.
Consequently, I am pleading with all of the students in both public and private schools across Southern California to go to school tomorrow, and stay in school during the entire school day. It would be far more effective to achieving our goal if the students remained in school, engaged in debate and discussion about immigration reform, and spent time writing letters to California’s U.S. Senators and House Representatives. Such activities will be effective in obtaining our overall goal.
Parents, your children are enjoying the opportunity to get a good education so that their future lives will be meaningful and successful. Urge them to remain in their classrooms and at school to receive what many of you were not privileged to receive when you were growing up.
I will be praying fervently that God will continue to bless our community and our nation, and that working together in positive ways, we will be able to have Congress approve meaningful immigration reform legislation.
#######
Has Cardinal Mahony forgot about the Separation of Church and state or is Cardinal Mahony the new Ayatollah and his bishops the Mullah?
I'm sure hispanics make up a majority of the Catholic clergy in SoCal (they do in my area). Mahony doesn't want to see the flock, or their money, flee.
Mahony's living in an alternate universe, but you sound like a liberal atheist whining about religious figures exercising their right to free speech.
I am not a big fan of the Prince of the Church that presides in LA. I have been one of his biggest critics in the past. However him urging Kids to stay in school is a good thing.
Actually, I am not sure what you mean by that. The Catholic Church and the MExican Govt have always had a hostile relationship to each other. When i did mission work there a priest couldnt even wear clerical garb in public in some regions.
Separation of Church and State ? huh ?
The good cardinal has every right indeed responsibility to advise his flock when they are headed in the wrong direction, which they clearly are.
I suspect the reason the Cardinal is not making statements as to the Mexican govt is because he is not a Cardinal in Mexico. I am not a Mahoney fan here but gosh the gist is he is trying to tell his flock to stay in school.
The Mexican government is corrupt, but it is not religious.
You can't separate church and state and get an ethical state. No particular religion should rule a state, but a state's laws should be based on those of the Judaic-Christian God.
Furthermore, I fail to see how I am to be persuaded that people who skip school and work and expect no consequences are positive contributions to society.
Obviously, there are many Mexican-Americans (or just plain Mexicans) who stayed in school and at work during these protests; those are the sorts of folks we want here.
typo big time should be *historically*
I dont recall that the Cardinal told anyone to walk out of school. However thats not the point. I support his right to say what he is saying now. The churches in this country speak out on issues all the time. Most of the time I agree with them. The Cardinal is really a side issue in all this anyway. He knows that he will be promoted(actually given a desk job in Rome soo). He will be a calming influence though if this gets out of hand. I dont expect that to happen. This will soon I believe come to a quite anti climatic conclusion when the bills can not be reconciled in committee.
I know that is what they teach in college, but it is not true. It is liberal propoganda.
Want to become MEXICO?????
I never said I did.
I doesn't help the discussion to project one's personal animosity towards religion onto secular governments. The Mexican government is corrupt, but it is not corrupt because there are Christians living in Mexico.
So, in your opinion, the governments if the USSR, Nazi Germany, communist China, Cuba, Vietnam etc., aren't among the most corrupt governments? This statement also contracdicts your later statement about mexico being corrupt. Mexico's Consitution is explicity anti-religious, and, in fact, Catholicism is illegal under the Constitution.
Oh come now this issue is most personal to you as it is to me.
I am an American citizen, my rights as said citizen should be first before illegals and should not make me a second class citizen because of a religion.
"So, in your opinion, the governments if the USSR, Nazi Germany, communist China, Cuba, Vietnam etc., aren't among the most corrupt governments? "
They were NOT void of religion, their religion was based upon that religion of "we are gods".
Before I reply...I would ask you to clarify your "Separation of Church and State" comment.
I will await your post.
Hey I understand you disagree with the Cardinal. I find myself disagreeing with him all the time. BUt I don't think the Cardinal is asking to be put in charge of immigration policy. So I think our rights are secure
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
Yeah I would be opposed to that. My point is its just a viewpoint and folks are just trying to persuade people. In my mind there has not been enough discussion on this whole issue.
It is wrong to advocate law breaking.
Now the emphasis is about the "social" not the spiritual and Christ said FEED MY SHEEP and he was not talking about literal food as he said there will always be poor among you.
Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
So you see God Himself said HE would send a famine and it was not about what supports the flesh but that spiritual body.
The FAMINE is well in progress as to the WORD of God.
To be honest , I have been surprised that he hasnt taken more controversial stands on the immigration issue. I am relived that he hasnt done so. The Cardinal has got his hands full with many more matters. When he is gone LA will be a better place for Catholics. However, I would expect that even a Conservative Cardinal might have made some of the statements that he has.
Hey, in my view his spirtual leadership has been dismal. In fact, often its at odds with Catholic teaching really. Still there is a social aspect to the Gospel that can't be ignored. That doesnt mean that demands open borders or not having a sound policy though.
Well, I agree they had their own religious fervor, but by that definition, any government would be religious. When people say what you said, they are blaming problems on a specific theistic religion. Usually Christianity.
The illegals bring almost nothing to the collection baskets but instead bleed dioceses for money to support the churches and people located in the poor,Hispanic neighborhoods. But the Church is here to save souls and so Catholics need to try to keep those poor churches accessible to them. I am sorry that certain Catholic prelates seek to place burdens on people in the community that are not Catholic. I do my best to tell the hierarchy how their position hurts others and is counter productive with regards to evangelizing.
And just as you may not listen,they haven't either. I am specifically speaking of those similar to Mahoney,whose intent is quite in accord with other marxist leaning clergy. Very sad.
Wow! Do I get a whole chapter in "The Rise and Fall of Western Civilization" when it's written?
So true. If people in this country would read up on the history of Mexico and the Church they would be very shocked and might be of far more help in trying to determine how to deal with this simmering pot.
My thoughts right now are that the same people who suppressed the Church and confiscated Church property in several revolutions in Mexico over the past centuries are the very same as those now collaborating to open the borders.
Their intent is not to the advantage of average,well meaning Americans nor to the illegals truly seeking a better life. Democrats and Republicans,leaders and constituents,have their own special interest in keeping the border open. I believe some if not many of them are well intended but ill informed or opportunists,not exactly sterling qualities but nonetheless without malevolent motives.
However,there is some directed evil and evil menn behind much of this and I wouldn't doubt it may have something to do with protecting drug routes and ensuring transport of the drugs.Any thoughts?
You are being too kind. Nonetheless there is much truth in what you have said,just not all of it.
Yes,you can have an entire chapter in the "Rise and Fall". But you will need to give me your real name. See how reasonable I am?
I'm with you so far.
because of a religion.
That's where your argument goes off track. Religion doesn't even enter into it, except for the fact that some "social justice" advocates happen to be clerics.
True.
Regards Vincente Fox,your point about the one term is valid,I know I knew that once but had forgotten it. Thanks. What I thought was interesting and made me lose heart was the fact that Vincente did tout his Catholicism prior to the election. He may very well have won on that basis.He even made statements about not marrying because he had divorced his first wife and would remain unmarried.
Shortly after getting into office he married his girlfriend,I was disheartened and am not surprised that he turned out to be such a diappointment. Lying always distorts reality and leads to confusion and worse.
I guess what I meant by villages with no men is that in some areas a huge part of the population is gone. SInce these are the poor the question prob would be who would they vote for if they were there. Also, is a population of villages of mostly women and children going to exactly to be very agitated if the Govt doesnt look after their interest. Again its just a theory of mine. Also the fact that so much money is sent back and they don't have to worry about the social cost and benifits is a plus to them.
Again, I would be curious to see where the inflow of people is coming from within Mexico itself. Perhaps its widely dispersed but I suspect not. I might try to find to see if I can find a study on this.
Yeah, look at all those communist governments, completely corrupt and famously inefficient.
Oops, they were atheist.
Moron.
THis is interesting from realpolitcs
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_29_06_RNJ.html
"Take, for instance, all the hoopla about how the Mexican Congress has passed a law allowing Mexican expatriates in the United States to vote in the Mexican presidential election in July without the inconvenience of first having to return home.
This is a good thing. The migrants have earned the right to cast ballots, having sent home more than $16 billion in remittances last year alone. That sum is the country's largest source of foreign income, surpassing the take from an industry near and dear to Mexico's heart: petroleum.
It's also a step in the right direction. For decades, when a migrant left Mexico, the rule was: out of sight, out of mind. The thinking was, if you were going to insult Mother Mexico by fleeing to the United States, you were on your own. Increasingly, that's no longer the case. Now the Mother expresses concern for her lost children and tries to protect them from afar.
But then why would the Mexican Congress include in the same reform law the equivalent of a poison pill: A prohibition on any campaigning, rallies or fundraising by presidential candidates on foreign soil? And, of course, by foreign soil, the Mexican Congress could only have meant one thing: the United States. Bear in mind that the majority of folks in Congress belong to the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which held the presidency by hook or crook for more than 70 years before Vicente Fox and the National Action Party, or PAN, took the presidency in 2000.
It seems the PRI doesn't really want its paisanos in the United States to learn much about the candidates, the issues or the upcoming election. Learning breeds excitement and excited people are more likely to exercise their right to vote. And that's the last thing the PRI wants. It doesn't have many friends on this side of the border. Over the last several decades, many of the people who fled Mexico did so to escape the inequity and injustice that were byproducts of corrupt PRI regimes.
Be that as it may, that's now the law: No campaigning outside Mexico, as Fox and other candidates have done in the past. Political parties that violate the edict risk incurring hefty fines imposed by the Mexican elections commission"
"Well, I agree they had their own religious fervor, but by that definition, any government would be religious. When people say what you said, they are blaming problems on a specific theistic religion. Usually Christianity."
That is correct any government with absolute power is religious. This nation is set apart from all others in all of recorded history wherein we the people are government.
The attempt is to erase the illegal from border crossers without documentation. So our government is usurping authority not inherent in their Constitutional authority. When one nickle of tax dollars is used to fund illegal activity then we the people are no longer government.
Liberals are more religious than most, their religion is based upon that very old religion "we are gods". Hillry pulled back the curtain when she accused Republicans of making "Jesus" illegal.
Our elected leaders are attempting to out do one another for VOTES. They are USING the poor and desperate people for their own self protection and political gain. They are willing to use whatever it takes to maintain their power and if screwing present American citizens happens they could care less.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.